Warpath (http://www.thewarpath.net/forum.php)
-   Parking Lot (http://www.thewarpath.net/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   The OFFICAL 2004 Election Thread (http://www.thewarpath.net/showthread.php?t=3542)

illdefined 11-04-2004 12:34 PM

[QUOTE=cpayne5]In the past, particularly the Albany/Buffalo case, the media has gotten ahold of the details of surveillance techniques used in terrorism cases and broadcasted it to the world. This is not smart. You don't want to show your hand to the terrorists. If Bush had come out and listed counter terrorism successes, details would surface, thus making terrorists smarter.[/QUOTE]

Albany i did hear about. wasn't their target NYC? obviously, i was trying to make a point that most of the states that voted for Bush aren't prime terrorist targets.

cpayne5 11-04-2004 12:43 PM

[QUOTE=illdefined]Albany i did hear about. wasn't their target NYC? obviously, i was trying to make a point that most of the states that voted for Bush aren't prime terrorist targets.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough.

I guess they do have prime targets, but I consider the entire US a target as long as al qaeda exists.

illdefined 11-04-2004 12:58 PM

[QUOTE=cpayne5]Fair enough.

I guess they do have prime targets, but I consider the entire US a target as long as al qaeda exists.[/QUOTE]

you're right. al qaeda is a threat to the united states period. which brings up my other point i made originaly.

i was so angered to see bin laden looking healthy and comfortable, a guy who killed thousands of americans on american soil (and almost killed me), on video friday night before the election.

Bush spent millions of dollars and thousands of lives on bringing sadam and his completely non-existent weapons in, and has completely half-assed the search of bin laden. there's been a FRACTION of money spent and troops on the ground in afghanistan than iraq, and bin laden is in a city somewhere plotting the next attack.

even if sadam had those weapons and the intent, which he didn't, how was he going to deliver them to the united states? (unlike korea, who has both nukes AND the means to deliver them). whatever agenda Bush had in iraq has alienated us from the allies we had going into afghanistan. and now we're shooting off blindly and alone.

i don't see how anyone can not see this as a colossal FAILURE of a commander and chief, who won't even consider he's made mistakes. i feel MUCH LESS secure as a citizen. especially here in nyc.

JoeRedskin 11-04-2004 01:41 PM

[QUOTE=illdefined]I honestly don't think the majority of this country would elect [Colin Powell] president because of his race. just the way i feel.[/QUOTE]


With all due respect that is a statement based in racism. (Please note, I am not saying you ARE a racist, merely that your comment has significant racist undertones).

My assertion is based on an assumption about your statement. The assumption being that it is your position that the majority of whites voters would not vote for an otherwise qualified candidate who fairly represented their views on the sole basis that the candidate was black. IF that is not your intent, I apologize for the misunderstanding and you may stop reading now.

IF, however, that was the intent of your statement (or reasonably close to it), then it is your FEELING that whites are so prejudiced against blacks that it would prevent them from voting in their own interests. ("prejudice" being a negative opinion of someone or something without a factual basis for the opinion as opposed to "bias" which is a positive opinion of someone or something without a factual basis for the opinion).

As I stated, and I believe evidence from the time showed, a majority of americans preferred Colin Powell for president in 2000 over any other candidate. Additionally, given that african-americans have been elected senators, governors and representatives and been appointed and approved for national level executive positions, I do not believe there is a rational basis for your assertion (This is not to assert that racial prejudice does not exist; it does - on both sides of the black/white divide. My point, though, is that it is simply no longer strong enough to override a white or black person from voting for candidates who support their personal agenda).

To my knowledge, when black candidates have represented the majority view of their targeted electorate, they have gotten elected. Can you cite instances in the last 20 years where a black candidate, who supported the economic and social policies held by the majority of an electorate, was bypassed for a white candidate who's views were not supported by the same electorate?

To me, your statement is based in unsubstantiated opinion, and assumes that the majority of whites are prejudiced. I suggest to you that that is a negative belief about a race that is not substantiated by the facts and is, in fact, racist. It is for all intents and purposes, the same as someone saying "blacks in america vote for black candidates because they hate whites".

I would not make such an assumption about an entire race (or even the majority of one). I would be thankful if you would reexamine "your feelings" about mine. True understanding cannot be reached unless we are willing and able to believe the best about each other and to accept that we are more alike than different.

illdefined 11-04-2004 02:23 PM

good post JR. and it deserves a good response. my mostly instinctual opinion is more about the the nature of political parties in this country and not a blanket statement about whites (though it is pretty safe to say the vast majority of Republicans are white. i'd say most Dems are white too, though not sure the percentage).

i PERSONALLY don't believe the Republican party is ready to accept a black candidate, simply based on the socio-economic demographic of most Republicans and the mostly symbolic roles they've played in the Bush administration. National Security Adviser, while a hefty title, has no real official responsibility and is civilian role. Bush, as we know, has gotten MUCH "National Security Advice" from people other than Condeleeza Rice.

Sec of State is a huge role in the government, but not in this administration. Powell has been greatly disempowered by Cheney and Rumsfeld, and has been turned into nothing more than a figurehead. while i'm NOT saying they were appointed JUST to get out the black vote, i do know the kind of effect they've played in the administration since. AM I CALLING THE ADMIN. RACIST?? no. i am just pointing out the de facto role of the most important black politicians in the Republican administration thus far. for whatever reason.

much of the same can be said about the Democrats. blacks have made huge progress politically, but have a far way to go to be truly accepted as Presidential hopefuls. so ultimately, i blame the political system which is a byproduct of years of history in the United States. while it may sound pessismistic, i do think we'll get there. eventually.

That Guy 11-04-2004 03:38 PM

there still are some fundamentalist and hate groups that do vote (ie KKK), so while not the majority, there are certain blocs that would most defiantely sway their votes... I personally think someone like powell, running on a republican ticket would have a MUCH easier time getting elected than say, obama on a liberal ticket... the right is more inclined to dislike affirmative action and various other social programs, and i think the fear of a conservative candidate vastly expanding such programs would be far less imposing...

there are real reasons besides racism that black candidates might have a harder time...

That Guy 11-05-2004 12:55 PM

just heard voter turnout in VA was over 70%.... holy sh*t!

redrock-skins 11-05-2004 01:01 PM

AZ, 42%-lowest in the nation. Pathetic! Though we did not have enough poll workers or polling places as lines were 4 hours in certain areas and many got frustrated and left without voting. Still, no excuses, I doubt that number would go up that much more if everyone stuck around.

Here's the link to show each state's percentage:


MTK 11-05-2004 04:28 PM

Only 4 states were worse than in 2000, that's encouraging

It's great to see those states over 60% and some even over 70%, too bad we can't get every state over 60% at the least.

Daseal 11-05-2004 05:13 PM

I'd love to see McCain, Colin Powell, or Obama be our next commander and cheif. I like all of these guys a lot! Personally, I prefer men who have been in war for President. They understand the hardships of war and the death and destruction it causes. They don't just load up and head to war.

I know Obama doesnt fill that roll, but he's so damn charismatic!

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:00 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site has no official affiliation with the Washington Redskins or the NFL, we're just a bunch of fans talking football

Page generated in 0.05581 seconds with 8 queries